Becoming more and more obvious that you support cowardice,... explains a lot of your posting habits.Did you even graduate from highschool? From where this infantile garbage?
Becoming more and more obvious that you support cowardice,... explains a lot of your posting habits.Did you even graduate from highschool? From where this infantile garbage?
Your accusations of cowardice are based on your claims that people won't answer your questions.Becoming more and more obvious that you support cowardice,... explains a lot of your posting habits.
Fuji's paper from Nature was looking at a situation where increased CO2 had a warming effect. Your own link supports my interpretation of the AGW hypothesis:You are still making an incredibly stupid and basic error.
Water vapour has a feedback effect on the climate. When the global temp goes up the atmosphere can hold more water vapour, warming global temp.
When the global temp goes down, the atmosphere holds less water vapour and it has a cooling effect.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
That's because its a feedback effect.
On its own it won't change the global climate, it reacts to changes in the climate, unlike the effects of increasing CO2 which has a major forcing effect.
No wonder the rest of your claims make no sense, if you can't understand this one basic point.
Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html“This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity,” Dessler said. “Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide."
What Fuji actually said was that he thought the paper (which he has never read) was looking at the net result after the "reducing" effect of water vapour feedback.I phrased that with an if, as in, it doesn't matter if water vapor has xyz effect, that's included in the result. That doesn't imply I hold any position one way or another nor does it imply I think it's an open question. It's just dismissive.
I never made any claim either way about water vapor, I was just dismissing YOUR introduction of it in the discussion.
Your own 'personal' interpretation is fairly idiotic, I'm afraid to say.Fuji's paper from Nature was looking at a situation where increased CO2 had a warming effect. Your own link supports my interpretation of the AGW hypothesis:
Again, same basic and stupid mistake.What Fuji actually said was that he thought the paper (which he has never read) was looking at the net result after the "reducing" effect of water vapour feedback.
No attempt by you to rewrite what I said, lie about what I said, misrepresent what I said, or twist what I said is going to make that Nature article go away.What Fuji actually said was that he thought the paper (which he has never read) was looking at the net result after the "reducing" effect of water vapour feedback.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Frankfooter&p=5546249&viewfull=1#post5546249
But let's assume that the quote above is his current position, that he says it's unclear what effect water vapour feedback might have in a situation where man-made CO2 has increased and warming has been measured that can be directly attributed to the CO2 increase.
If that's Fuji's position, that is still a complete rejection of the AGW hypothesis.
As noted above (in the link provided by Frankfooter), the overwhelming majority of warming in the AGW models comes from water vapour feedback.
Fuji says he doesn't necessarily accept that water vapour feedback would lead to any warming. Thus, he has rejected the entire hypothesis.
So there you have it folks,... as far a green house gases, the temperature of the planet, and climate of the planet,..."water vapour is irrelevant".At no point did I say it's "unclear" what effect water vapor has, I didn't claim it was unknown, hard to known, an open question, or anything else -- I just dismissed it as irrelevant.
I never said it was irrelevant in general. I said it was irrelevant to the study we were discussing. Learn to fucking read!!!!!So there you have it folks,... as far a green house gases, the temperature of the planet, and climate of the planet,..."water vapour is irrelevant".
Looks like fuji is publishing his own version of some discredited nature magazine.
Of coarse that's what some do,... when they are caught in lies.
Next up,... fuji's version of the Hockey Shtick graph of lies,... that was published in a discredited nature magazine.
Except water vapour is always relevant,... in any discussion regarding the climate.I never said it was irrelevant in general. I said it was irrelevant to the study we were discussing. Learn to fucking read!!!!!
I have noticed that actual arguments from AGW deniers are now very scarce, it's all misrepresentation such as FAST and MF display here--they're intellectually bankrupt and can no longer make reasonable arguments. All they do now is lie about what others said to create the illusion of debate.
There is no debate. AGW is an observed fact now.
As far as climate change is concerned, its not a concern.So there you have it folks,... as far a green house gases, the temperature of the planet, and climate of the planet,..."water vapour is irrelevant".
Since the study measured the actual warming at the actual surface of the actual Earth it automatically took into account any real world factor because it was a real world measurement. To whatever extent water vapor makes a difference in the real world, the study measured it. It measured the actual impact on energy warming the surface..Except water vapour is always relevant,... in any discussion regarding the climate.
But the real point is that you are continually running away from one of your fuji grand proclamations about the effect water vapour has on the climate.
I make no misrepresentations,... always factual.
How could some one lie when quoting what you post,... ???
And as far as being personally bankrupt,... you are morally bankrupt.
If there is actually "no debate",... does that mean you won't be commenting about my posts on the subject anymore,... nobody would complain fuji.
Fricken hilarious,... "took into account any real world factor because it was the was a real world measurement"Since the study measured the actual warming at the actual surface of the actual Earth it automatically took into account any real world factor because it was a real world measurement. To whatever extent water vapor makes a difference in the real world, the study measured it. It measured the actual impact on energy warming the surface.. .
You do NOT get to state what is a "real reply or when the debate is over",... you are nobody,... you are fuji.This debate is over. You guys have not had any real reply to that point ever. It's been like a year and you've never had a reply, so it's indeed over.
What time zone am I in?^^^^ hey fuji, what are you doing up at 5am if you work in middle-management of a major company (like you said you were)??
You missed the point. Total energy hitting the surface versus CO2 level in the atmosphere. Think. Think hard. I have faith that if you think long and hard you will get it. You may be senile but if you put in the effort you still can understand, so try!Fricken hilarious,... "took into account any real world factor because it was the was a real world measurement"
And just what is this new high tech instrument that can isolate the water vapour positive feed back effect of the planets temperature,... ???
As apposed to a fake world with a fake surface,... there is a surface on the planet that is not "actual". :doh:
And,... "water vapor makes a difference in the real world, the study measured it",... which is what we've been telling you over and over again,...now you finally understand,...:applouse:
You do NOT get to state what is a "real reply or when the debate is over",... you are nobody,... you are fuji.
And once again,...does that mean you will not be quoting my posts on the subject,... one can only hope.
If you're West coast it wouldve been a 2am post. If you're YYZ its a 5am post.What time zone am I in?
What makes you think 2am is crazy?If you're West coast it wouldve been a 2am post. If you're YYZ its a 5am post.
Either way, its crazy hours for a hard-working manager of a major company
Or is this the part where you tell us you live in a mansion in Hawaii
Once in a while wouldnt be crazy. But you post regularly between 2am and 6am.What makes you think 2am is crazy?
What makes you think I routinely post between 2 and 6? What time zone am I in?Once in a while wouldnt be crazy. But you post regularly between 2am and 6am.
Those are not normal, usual hours for an office worker like you claimed you were.
I'm convinced you work at some capacity in the sex industry. Maybe as a driver or a phone answer guy.
I dont think you're a pimp or a drug dealer, because you come across as too nerdy for that.
Maybe you're just unemployed??